3oh6
Well-known member
System Benchmarks
SuperPi Mod v1.5<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>When running the 32M benchmark of SPi, we are calculating Pi to 32 million digits and timing the process. Obviously more CPU power helps in this intense calculation, but the memory sub-system also plays an important role, as does the operating system. SPi 32M has been a favorite amongst benchmarks for these very reasons and is admittedly the favorite benchmark of this reviewer.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/dfi/x58-t3eh8/sys_bench-1.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">After the bandwidth results the most anticipated system bench for us was 32M SuperPi. The reason being is that SuperPi is so dependent on memory bandwidth that it would show whether or not we actually did lose bandwidth or giant latency going from 2x2GB to 3x2GB, and it appears there is definitely something going on when we do. The six second difference isn't huge, and honestly less than we thought, but there is still evidence here that memory is being affected by dropping from triple to dual channel. With such a small difference at these clocks, it is hard to say whether the Everest latency results are responsible, or whether there is simply something involved dealing with the amount of DIMM slots and memory ranks being used. The Sandra memory bandwidth results are clearly removed from acceptability after the 32M results as the time difference would be well over ten seconds with that kind of change, so Everest and ScienceMark - with the edge to ScienceMark - appear to be better bandwidth gauges based on these results.</p>
PCMark Vantage<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>The latest iteration of the popular system benchmark is PCMark Vantage from the Futuremark crew. The PCMark series has always been a great way to either test specific areas of a system or to get a general over view of how your system is performing. For our results, we simply run the basic benchmark suite which involves a wide range of tests on all of the sub-systems of the computer.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/dfi/x58-t3eh8/sys_bench-2.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">The PCMark Vantage default bench results would flip flop back and forth from dual channel to triple channel scoring higher. In the end, the average for the dual channel results marginally outperforms the triple channel setup but realize that this difference easily falls into the margin for discrepancy from one run to the next.</p>
Cinebench R10<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Another benchmarking community favorite, Cinebench renders an intense 2D scene relying on all the processing power it can. Cinebench R10 is another 64-bit capable application and is likely the most efficient program tested today at utilizing all cores of a processor. We will be running both the single threaded and multi-threaded benches here today.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/dfi/x58-t3eh8/sys_bench-3.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">Like PCMark Vantage, the Cinebench results show dual channel out performing triple channel but the difference can be accounted for by the run-to-run differences seen during testing. Cinebench is primarily a CPU influenced benchmark anyway.</p>
DivX Converter v7.1<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Next up is a real life benchmark where we simply time a common task done on the computer. Encoding DVDs for viewing on the computer or other devices is an increasingly important task that the personal computer has taken on. We will take a VOB rip of the movie Office Space, and convert it into DivX using the default 720P setting of DivX converter v6.8.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/dfi/x58-t3eh8/sys_bench-4.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">After the SPi 32M and bandwidth/latency benchmark results, we were expecting some real world difference in programs like the DivX during encoding but that clearly was the case. Again, the dual channel setup is neck and neck with the triple channel configuration showing basically no difference. We are really starting to wonder about this whole triple channel marketing blitz for i7. It is really beginning to look like the i7 processor is already saturated with memory bandwidth with the onboard memory controller that triple channel memory is just not necessary in real world applications. Even with the additional memory from the third stick, Vista doesn't seem to be favoring the triple channel setup in any benchmarks thus far.</p>
Lame Front End<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Un-like the DivX conversion we just looked at, Lame Front End is not multi-threaded and only utilizes a single core of a processor. This will obviously limit performance but we should still recognize significant time savings going from the stock settings to the overclocked results. We will be encoding a WAV rip of the Blackalicious album, Blazing Arrow and converting it to MP3 using the VBR 0 quality preset.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/dfi/x58-t3eh8/sys_bench-5.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">With Lame Front End being a single threaded application we didn't expect much if any difference between the dual and triple channel setups and the that is what we see here.</p>
Photoshop CS4<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Adobe Photoshop CS4 is fully x64 compliant and ready and able to use every single CPU cycle our processor has available including the implementation of GPU support utilizing the GTX 280 in our test system. It is just a shame it can't fully utilize all 8 threads of the i7 processor yet. We have changed our Photoshop benchmark to more of a standardized test configured by DriverHeaven.net. Their Photoshop benchmark utilizes 15 filters and effects on an uncompressed 109MB .JPG image that will test not only the CPU but also the memory subsystem of our test bench. Each portion of the benchmark is timed and added together for a final time that is compared below.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/dfi/x58-t3eh8/sys_bench-6.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">Expectations were again high for Photoshop to prove us all wrong and show that the triple channel memory still has worth on this setup but as you can see from the graph above, we were disappointed once again. At this point, after the DivX and now the Photoshop results, we are pretty much comfortable stating to perhaps re-think your purchasing decisions for your i7 setup. It may be tough finding i7 rated memory in dual channel configurations but if you are at the point where you are asking yourself whether you need triple or dual channel memory...you might want to think about what programs you are going to be running because the results we have seen before really don't justify the third stick of memory in any way.</p>
WinRAR 3.80<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>We all know what WinRAR is and does. It is a compression and decompression tool that has a built in benchmark, a way to tell just how fast a system can do this programs given task. We simply run the benchmark up to 500MB processed and time how long it takes.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/corsair/tr3x6g1866c7gtf/sys_bench-7.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">We finish up the system benchmarks with another highly influenced benchmark by memory bandwidth and performance and again, there is next to no difference between our overclocked setups.
There you have it, for those asking in forums, and those that didn't even know they were interested. Dual channel memory versus triple channel memory might not be that big of a difference after all. Of course, these conclusions are based on a single setup tested above with a limited number of programs constricted in their use, but there is definitely some questions to be asked after these results. Let's now see if gaming has any impact from the memory differences.</p>
System Benchmarks
SuperPi Mod v1.5<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>When running the 32M benchmark of SPi, we are calculating Pi to 32 million digits and timing the process. Obviously more CPU power helps in this intense calculation, but the memory sub-system also plays an important role, as does the operating system. SPi 32M has been a favorite amongst benchmarks for these very reasons and is admittedly the favorite benchmark of this reviewer.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/dfi/x58-t3eh8/sys_bench-1.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">After the bandwidth results the most anticipated system bench for us was 32M SuperPi. The reason being is that SuperPi is so dependent on memory bandwidth that it would show whether or not we actually did lose bandwidth or giant latency going from 2x2GB to 3x2GB, and it appears there is definitely something going on when we do. The six second difference isn't huge, and honestly less than we thought, but there is still evidence here that memory is being affected by dropping from triple to dual channel. With such a small difference at these clocks, it is hard to say whether the Everest latency results are responsible, or whether there is simply something involved dealing with the amount of DIMM slots and memory ranks being used. The Sandra memory bandwidth results are clearly removed from acceptability after the 32M results as the time difference would be well over ten seconds with that kind of change, so Everest and ScienceMark - with the edge to ScienceMark - appear to be better bandwidth gauges based on these results.</p>
PCMark Vantage<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>The latest iteration of the popular system benchmark is PCMark Vantage from the Futuremark crew. The PCMark series has always been a great way to either test specific areas of a system or to get a general over view of how your system is performing. For our results, we simply run the basic benchmark suite which involves a wide range of tests on all of the sub-systems of the computer.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/dfi/x58-t3eh8/sys_bench-2.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">The PCMark Vantage default bench results would flip flop back and forth from dual channel to triple channel scoring higher. In the end, the average for the dual channel results marginally outperforms the triple channel setup but realize that this difference easily falls into the margin for discrepancy from one run to the next.</p>
Cinebench R10<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Another benchmarking community favorite, Cinebench renders an intense 2D scene relying on all the processing power it can. Cinebench R10 is another 64-bit capable application and is likely the most efficient program tested today at utilizing all cores of a processor. We will be running both the single threaded and multi-threaded benches here today.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/dfi/x58-t3eh8/sys_bench-3.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">Like PCMark Vantage, the Cinebench results show dual channel out performing triple channel but the difference can be accounted for by the run-to-run differences seen during testing. Cinebench is primarily a CPU influenced benchmark anyway.</p>
DivX Converter v7.1<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Next up is a real life benchmark where we simply time a common task done on the computer. Encoding DVDs for viewing on the computer or other devices is an increasingly important task that the personal computer has taken on. We will take a VOB rip of the movie Office Space, and convert it into DivX using the default 720P setting of DivX converter v6.8.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/dfi/x58-t3eh8/sys_bench-4.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">After the SPi 32M and bandwidth/latency benchmark results, we were expecting some real world difference in programs like the DivX during encoding but that clearly was the case. Again, the dual channel setup is neck and neck with the triple channel configuration showing basically no difference. We are really starting to wonder about this whole triple channel marketing blitz for i7. It is really beginning to look like the i7 processor is already saturated with memory bandwidth with the onboard memory controller that triple channel memory is just not necessary in real world applications. Even with the additional memory from the third stick, Vista doesn't seem to be favoring the triple channel setup in any benchmarks thus far.</p>
Lame Front End<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Un-like the DivX conversion we just looked at, Lame Front End is not multi-threaded and only utilizes a single core of a processor. This will obviously limit performance but we should still recognize significant time savings going from the stock settings to the overclocked results. We will be encoding a WAV rip of the Blackalicious album, Blazing Arrow and converting it to MP3 using the VBR 0 quality preset.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/dfi/x58-t3eh8/sys_bench-5.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">With Lame Front End being a single threaded application we didn't expect much if any difference between the dual and triple channel setups and the that is what we see here.</p>
Photoshop CS4<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Adobe Photoshop CS4 is fully x64 compliant and ready and able to use every single CPU cycle our processor has available including the implementation of GPU support utilizing the GTX 280 in our test system. It is just a shame it can't fully utilize all 8 threads of the i7 processor yet. We have changed our Photoshop benchmark to more of a standardized test configured by DriverHeaven.net. Their Photoshop benchmark utilizes 15 filters and effects on an uncompressed 109MB .JPG image that will test not only the CPU but also the memory subsystem of our test bench. Each portion of the benchmark is timed and added together for a final time that is compared below.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/dfi/x58-t3eh8/sys_bench-6.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">Expectations were again high for Photoshop to prove us all wrong and show that the triple channel memory still has worth on this setup but as you can see from the graph above, we were disappointed once again. At this point, after the DivX and now the Photoshop results, we are pretty much comfortable stating to perhaps re-think your purchasing decisions for your i7 setup. It may be tough finding i7 rated memory in dual channel configurations but if you are at the point where you are asking yourself whether you need triple or dual channel memory...you might want to think about what programs you are going to be running because the results we have seen before really don't justify the third stick of memory in any way.</p>
WinRAR 3.80<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>We all know what WinRAR is and does. It is a compression and decompression tool that has a built in benchmark, a way to tell just how fast a system can do this programs given task. We simply run the benchmark up to 500MB processed and time how long it takes.</i></p><center><img src="http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/3oh6/corsair/tr3x6g1866c7gtf/sys_bench-7.png" alt=""></center><p style="text-align: justify;">We finish up the system benchmarks with another highly influenced benchmark by memory bandwidth and performance and again, there is next to no difference between our overclocked setups.
There you have it, for those asking in forums, and those that didn't even know they were interested. Dual channel memory versus triple channel memory might not be that big of a difference after all. Of course, these conclusions are based on a single setup tested above with a limited number of programs constricted in their use, but there is definitely some questions to be asked after these results. Let's now see if gaming has any impact from the memory differences.</p>
Last edited by a moderator:
